How long could Nazi Germany delay its defeat?

I can't see them surviving much into 1946. Nuclear weapons aren't going to win the war in and of themselves, but they likely make it much harder for the regime to maintain control.
 
Considering the “Europe first” policy, the Allies would remain focused on defeating Germany first and foremost. With a POD in 1943 the Germans could delay defeat until late 1945, but I don’t see Nazi Germany surviving into 1946 no matter what the Germans do.
 
I could see them delaying a successful invasion of Northern France or escaping most of the troop losses from Bagration but not both - the consequence is that they would do much worse on the other front.
 
Basically what it says on the tin, with a POD in the summer of 1943, how long could Nazi Germany survive?
1990's I figure (edit: in terms of 'survive'; not in terms of avoiding military defeat), based on how long Stalin and his successors' version of a communist Russia lasted.
That presupposes Hitler gets couped/assassinated, along with half a dozen key advisors as early in 1943 as the point of departure permits, and the replacements negotiate a rapid peace (possibly on the basis of assistance fighting the Imperial Japanese) which allows a nominally 'Nazi' regime to remain in charge in Germany.
Might need a bit of Alien Space Bat assistance though, and I don't know that occupation zones can be avoided.
 
What if the Nazis/Romania and other allies withdraw to their 1941 or close to it in a fortified line on the Eastern front to cut down on the territory that the Need to hold and logistics meaning less troops shortages
 
1990's I figure (edit: in terms of 'survive'; not in terms of avoiding military defeat), based on how long Stalin and his successors' version of a communist Russia lasted.
That presupposes Hitler gets couped/assassinated, along with half a dozen key advisors as early in 1943 as the point of departure permits, and the replacements negotiate a rapid peace (possibly on the basis of assistance fighting the Imperial Japanese) which allows a nominally 'Nazi' regime to remain in charge in Germany.
Might need a bit of Alien Space Bat assistance though, and I don't know that occupation zones can be avoided.
I think by 1943, the Nazi regime was pretty much over.

I've seen, what I'll best describe as 'optimistic', timelines on here with 1943 PODs which have Hitler replaced by Goering and then the Allies guzzle lead-paint and start a shooting war with themselves. I don't consider this sort of...... story..... plausible at all.

A Prussian Junta of sorts, *might* be able to pull something out the hat if they immediately coup the Nazis in 1943, and replace the whole regime with a stated aim of cleaning house and making peace. But the chances of this are pretty much nil and doing so defeats the original requirement of a Nazi German state surviving.

In all honesty, a Nazi Germany can survive to the Autumn of 1945, say early September. Either one of two scenarios:
1. They do a lot better militarily from 1943 onwards. Kursk doesn't happen (or is a bluff) and they are able to significantly stall the Soviets in the East and Western Allies in Italy and France. By August 1945, Germany is holding on still, probably on the Rhine (or West Wall, even better) in the West, and maybe somewhere between Berlin and Warsaw in the East. Autumn and the colder weather is coming and the Germans are digging in for the long fight, and Allied casualty estimates are still horrific with an estimated end to the war by conventional means no sooner than May 1946.
Truman reads the above, thinks sod it, and nuclear fire erupts over at least two German cities, with the threat of more (whether real or not, it seems real). Germany spends just long enough shooting any Nazis who managed to escape the nuking of Berlin before surrendering on 15th September 1945.

2. Germany does better, but not that much better. By August 1945, the situation is pretty much OTL March 1945. Truman therefore doesn't bother nuking, but Germany collapses one month later with the Soviets taking Berlin on 15th September 1945.
 
I think by 1943, the Nazi regime was pretty much over.

I've seen, what I'll best describe as 'optimistic', timelines on here with 1943 PODs which have Hitler replaced by Goering and then the Allies guzzle lead-paint and start a shooting war with themselves. I don't consider this sort of...... story..... plausible at all.

A Prussian Junta of sorts, *might* be able to pull something out the hat if they immediately coup the Nazis in 1943, and replace the whole regime with a stated aim of cleaning house and making peace. But the chances of this are pretty much nil and doing so defeats the original requirement of a Nazi German state surviving.

In all honesty, a Nazi Germany can survive to the Autumn of 1945, say early September. Either one of two scenarios:
1. They do a lot better militarily from 1943 onwards. Kursk doesn't happen (or is a bluff) and they are able to significantly stall the Soviets in the East and Western Allies in Italy and France. By August 1945, Germany is holding on still, probably on the Rhine (or West Wall, even better) in the West, and maybe somewhere between Berlin and Warsaw in the East. Autumn and the colder weather is coming and the Germans are digging in for the long fight, and Allied casualty estimates are still horrific with an estimated end to the war by conventional means no sooner than May 1946.
Truman reads the above, thinks sod it, and nuclear fire erupts over at least two German cities, with the threat of more (whether real or not, it seems real). Germany spends just long enough shooting any Nazis who managed to escape the nuking of Berlin before surrendering on 15th September 1945.

2. Germany does better, but not that much better. By August 1945, the situation is pretty much OTL March 1945. Truman therefore doesn't bother nuking, but Germany collapses one month later with the Soviets taking Berlin on 15th September 1945.
Any links to those optimistic stories?
 
I think by 1943, the Nazi regime was pretty much over.

I've seen, what I'll best describe as 'optimistic', timelines on here with 1943 PODs which have Hitler replaced by Goering and then the Allies guzzle lead-paint and start a shooting war with themselves. I don't consider this sort of...... story..... plausible at all.

A Prussian Junta of sorts, *might* be able to pull something out the hat if they immediately coup the Nazis in 1943, and replace the whole regime with a stated aim of cleaning house and making peace. But the chances of this are pretty much nil and doing so defeats the original requirement of a Nazi German state surviving.

In all honesty, a Nazi Germany can survive to the Autumn of 1945, say early September. Either one of two scenarios:
1. They do a lot better militarily from 1943 onwards. Kursk doesn't happen (or is a bluff) and they are able to significantly stall the Soviets in the East and Western Allies in Italy and France. By August 1945, Germany is holding on still, probably on the Rhine (or West Wall, even better) in the West, and maybe somewhere between Berlin and Warsaw in the East. Autumn and the colder weather is coming and the Germans are digging in for the long fight, and Allied casualty estimates are still horrific with an estimated end to the war by conventional means no sooner than May 1946.
Truman reads the above, thinks sod it, and nuclear fire erupts over at least two German cities, with the threat of more (whether real or not, it seems real). Germany spends just long enough shooting any Nazis who managed to escape the nuking of Berlin before surrendering on 15th September 1945.

2. Germany does better, but not that much better. By August 1945, the situation is pretty much OTL March 1945. Truman therefore doesn't bother nuking, but Germany collapses one month later with the Soviets taking Berlin on 15th September 1945.
Post WW2, the Western Allies were more than happy enough to work with some leading Nazi figures, such as rocket scientists, and to let others such as Albert Speer rehabilitate themselves. (Although Speer did have to serve some time in prison first.)
If some of the Nazis depose Hitler and company, as soon as permitted by the opening post, in 1943, there might be space for them to put the blame on the deposed leaders, and hold onto some kind of positions, not least since in 1943 a surrender brings with it a complete liberation of Poland and some other Eastern European countries (as opposed to Stalin's version of liberation - i.e. Communist governments installed, answerable to Moscow) and Imperial Japan is still demanding attention. (I also note that in Italy after the Italian Armistice in 1943, some of the leading figures there managed to hang on for a while.)

A Nazi government isn't going to hang on for long past the original date by fighting to the last, I agree, but it seems to me at the moment possible that some of them might last considerably longer in power (albeit under occupation) by some nifty removal of their peers and rolling over and throwing themselves on the Western Allies' mercy.
 
What if the Nazis/Romania and other allies withdraw to their 1941 or close to it in a fortified line on the Eastern front to cut down on the territory that the Need to hold and logistics meaning less troops shortages
A retreat from Soviet territory would mean both surrendering captured resources to the enemy, losses they can't afford in manpower and morale, and giving an enemy that, if not already at parity, will be at parity all the more faster now that they've recovered a great deal more of their core territory.

This isn't WW1 where the solution to a strong enemy is dig in and hold out for peace. They'll be torn to shreds all the way back to whatever fortifications they prepare. (Something that's costly in resources all its own, resources that would be needed at the front, the front they need to abandon, and no matter what happens or how it happens this will all take time that's in ever-decreasing supply)

And once they've actually pulled back, they'll just have an emboldened, motivated enemy, with all the initiative, right on top of them.

And that's if everything goes as close to plan as is humanly possible. Real life is never so clean as to allow a plan like that to be followed to the letter or even the spirit of the letter.
 
Last edited:
If Hitler had allowed his generals to fight a retreating delaying action with preservation of men and material he could have bled the Soviet Union white and had enough strength to do the same in France. This would delay things no more then 6 to 12 months before fuel caused complete loss of combat ability. Stalingrad should have been a fighting retreat instead it was a complete rout with huge casualties. The lack of strategic direction initially was also a problem. The main objective for the Germans should have been the rail lines behind Moscow. Leningrad was irrelevant, Stalingrad was worthwhile if only to secure the Oil fields. Even Sevastopol could have been bypassed and dealt with later.
Another point most forget is the SS and Wehrmacht (not as many but it happened) anti-partisan actions created more partisans in places that originally welcomed them as liberators.
 
By the summer of 1943 the situation is pretty dire for the Axis. Probably the best POD for Germany is preventing the coup against Mussolini. The fall of Mussolini's regime and Italy's move to switch sides forced the Germans to divert dozens of divisions to hold Italy and to take over the Italian occupation zones in the Balkan countries and France. If the coup is averted and Mussolini's first regime remains in power then the Germans will still have to send some help to Italy, but far less then OTL. The Germans will save dozens of divisions for the defense of Germany itself while the Allies will have to expend more resources on the invasion of Italy. This could probably extend the war by a few months
 
We've just done this:

OK. That has the POD in september 1942, but with a POD in summer 1943 it really is just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

@TDM posted a table with german forces compared to the soviet forces. They're so badly outnumbered that it spells total defeat in summer 1945 at the latest.
Comparative-Strengths1.jpg
 
If Hitler had allowed his generals to fight a retreating delaying action with preservation of men and material he could have bled the Soviet Union white and had enough strength to do the same in France. This would delay things no more then 6 to 12 months before fuel caused complete loss of combat ability. Stalingrad should have been a fighting retreat instead it was a complete rout with huge casualties. The lack of strategic direction initially was also a problem. The main objective for the Germans should have been the rail lines behind Moscow. Leningrad was irrelevant, Stalingrad was worthwhile if only to secure the Oil fields. Even Sevastopol could have been bypassed and dealt with later.
Another point most forget is the SS and Wehrmacht (not as many but it happened) anti-partisan actions created more partisans in places that originally welcomed them as liberators.
Fighting retreats are very difficult to pull off when your army is mainly infantry formations with few trucks and horse drawn supply vehicles. Walking away from Red Army Tank and Mechanised corps or even its Cavalry units is likely to become a rout pdq. There's only so many armoured formations that can try to shield them from pursuit.

There's a good reason the Germans tried to fight from fortified positions as much as possible on the Eastern Front. And why when these were broken the retreats were disorganised and costly. Any withdrawals in a flexible defence posture are going to have to be short hops from one fortified supply hub (City on a railway?) to another prepared position. At some point you'll get caught out , especially in the Ukraine.
 
They might not be able to survive long enough to get nuked in August of 45
The best chance for success would be to pull troops back right before they get annihilated or surrounded
Pulling the troops out of Norway right before the allies except for on German soil would just provide more speed bumps for the Soviets.
At the beginning of Summer in 45 the Germans would start running out of infantry, vokestorm units would appear on the front line to the disbelief and horror of Frontline troops.
Post more Germany would look a lot like the post or Soviet Union, jobs normally done by men would be done by women because there were not enough men left to do the jobs
 
Germany would end up in a downright Paraguayan situation by the end of hostilities if they insisted on holding the line against the Western Allies at the Rhine and continued to fight till the end of 1945.
 
Germany would end up in a downright Paraguayan situation by the end of hostilities if they insisted on holding the line against the Western Allies at the Rhine and continued to fight till the end of 1945.
But if Hitler ordered guerilla warfare to be used, I would see this war taking in up to early 1950s in best case scenario and be the most devastated country on ww2
 
Basically what it says on the tin, with a POD in the summer of 1943, how long could Nazi Germany survive?

Not long.

They are tied into a two front war they cant win, are gradually being attrited and are being driven away from strategic resources. Sure they can play at the margins ( troop locations/fighting doctrine/stream line production/standardisation/complete mobilisation of female workers/even more fearsome oppression etc) but that only buys a smidgen of time in the grand scheme of things.

BTW we, with the benefit of total hindsight and information, know it was just about over. That wasn't clear to the men on the ground fighting and dying to make that happen. It was a meat grinder for them with every advance towards the end of the war paid for in blood.
 
Top